This article has 3 comments

It seems like an easier explanation than time going back on itself to create the universe is as follows.

If as the youtube person says, two choices for answering the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” are:

A. “Something” has always been here.

B. “Something” has not always been here.

Choice A is possible but doesn’t explain anything. If we go with choice B, if “something” has not always been here, then “nothing” must have been here before it. If this supposed “nothing” were truly the lack of all existent entities, there would be no mechanism present to change this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. Because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice then is that the supposed “nothing” is not the lack of all existent entities and is, in fact, a “something”. This is logically required if we go with choice B, and I don’t think there’s a way around that. What this means is that the situation we visualize as being the lack of all existent entities, or “nothing”, which I visualize as the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics and math as well as minds to consider this supposed lack of all, is not the true lack of all existent entities and is, in fact, a “something”. This also means that it’s not possible to have the true lack of all existent entities because even the resultant “nothing” is a “something”.
Now the trick is to figure out how what we previously visualized as the lack of all existent entities (the lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics and math as well as minds to consider this supposed lack of all) can be a “something”.
Thanks.